Where there’s smoke …
The rise of electronic cigarettes is posing unfamiliar challenges for regulators
The off-duty RCMP officer was furious, watching as an Oilers fan puffed away on a cigarette in his seat in Rexall Place.
Other fans were all respecting A lberta rules banning smoking in public places, yet the one man seemed to be brazenly flouting the law as he exhaled cloud after white cloud into the air around him.
As other spectators began to look on in disgust, the Mountie decided to confront the smoker. Marching over to the man’s seat, he got most of the way through a lengthy tirade before finally noticing that he, and everyone else, had been fooled.
“I remember having this RCMP officer come over and really give me a piece of his mind, until he realized what the product was and then he was very intrigued,” said Shanu Mohamedali, who was using an electronic cigarette that night to promote the devices sold by his company, Smoke NV.
“That was part of my job then, to go out there and get a reaction.”
As Mohamedali tells it, the incident happened some four or five years ago, when e-cigarettes were still relatively unknown. Today, the battery-powered devices are a much more common sight in stadiums, bars, restaurants, shopping malls and other venues where tobacco smoking is prohibited.
The market in the United States is now believed to be worth more than $2 billion annually, while the growth in Canada, though slower, has also been unmistakable. Smoke NV, which makes nicotine-free products, is projecting a jump in sales to more than $10 million this year from $6 million last year.
As the popularity of ecigarettes continues to heat up, so, too, has the pressure on federal and provincial regulators struggling to determine appropriate rules for how the products are used and sold. Faced with insufficient research on the health effects of the devices, authorities have so far reacted with caution.
“We don’t have a policy on it yet,” Health Minister Fred Horne acknowledged in a recent interview. “There just isn’t a lot of evidence, but we know this is something that is going to become more significant as more people use the products.”
Horne said the province has put itself in position to act quickly if research finds major concerns with the devices. Recently passed tobacco-control legislation, Bill 33, gives the government new powers to impose restrictions on any “tobacco-like” product that is lit or heated.
“We deliberately built flexibility into the law ... so it could be able to accommodate e-cigarettes as one of the products,” Horne said. “If the evidence demonstrates a risk to human health from using the products or inhaling the secondhand (vapour), we will act to protect Albertans.”
Alberta Health Services has also urged caution about electronic smoking devices, particularly those containing nicotine. In a brief report published in March 2012, the health authority warns that e-smokers can’t be sure of what they are ingesting due to a “void of regulatory requirements for product design and content.”
“The unproven claims of safety made by manufacturers are likely contributing to the rise in popularity of these products,” says the report. “However, these products have not been adequately tested for consumer use and the short and longterm impacts of using these products is unknown.”
The report cites studies done on U.S. products that found detectable levels of toxic chemicals in the vaporized liquids, and wide variations in levels of nicotine.
It notes that while the devices likely present fewer health risks than tobacco smoking, they are not recommended as smoking cessation aids.
While such warnings may catch consumers’ attention, the lack of any corresponding provincial regulations means the only formal protection for Albertans currently comes from Health Canada. The federal department continues to stand by a controversial 2009 edict advising Canadians to avoid electronic smoking devices, while banning the importation, advertising and sale of any such product containing nicotine. Observers, including Mohamedali, suggest the directive has had only limited success. Lack of an “e-cigarette police” means nicotine products can often be found in stores, and consumers can also easily order them online, he said.
Mohamedali’s company has so far avoided the wrath of Health Canada by making only non-nicotine products. The Edmonton-based firm has worked with an international food company to develop flavoured liquids, including menthol and blueberry.
“These products have not been adequately tested for consumer use.” ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES REPORT
The company, whose directors include several medical practitioners, has marketed the products as a tool to be used in conjunction with approved smoking cessation aids, such as nicotine patches or gum. The idea is that smokers will find it easier to quit if they have something to help them deal with their oral fixation habit, Mohamedali said. The strategy appears to be paying off, as Smoke NV’s products are now available all over the country in major retail stores from Sobeys and London Drugs to Petro-Canada and Vitality Health Foods.
But to grow its business further, Mohamedali admits his company will soon have to get into the nicotine game. The firm is working with a University of Alberta anesthesiologist, Barry Finegan, to conduct clinical trials required by Health Canada to get nicotine devices approved as a natural health product. The goal is to answer important questions, including how quickly — and how much — nicotine is absorbed in the blood through an e-cigarette. “We would be looking to classify our product at the same (smoking cessation) status as the patch or nicotine gum …” Mohamedali said.
In the meantime, observers are waiting to see what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does in terms of setting new rules for how the devices are manufactured, monitored and used. Such regulations could form the basis of what happens in Canada and Alberta.
There have been suggestions that sales should be banned to anyone under 18 — Smoke NV already recommends this — to avoid having young people use the products as a gateway to regular smoking.
A recent survey by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control found some evidence to justify this fear.
Others argue that the devices should be treated like regular cigarettes and banned from use in public places.